Re: POLITICS Egalitarianism (was Words again/Homeschool )

[Guest guest]

Gene wrote:

> > Of course, Zinn does not " blot the hero from the page "

> > as you say so eloquently in your usual pseudo poetical

> > hysterics. He just finds heroism in different places than

> > elitists like yourself.

_____

~~~~> You're right-- Zinn doesn't ignore the contributions of individuals to

history. I was exaggerating for the sake of embellishment based on comments

Zinn has made that are in agreement with a general tendency on *part* of the

Left to the effect that traditional history overemphasizes the contributions of

heroes and underemphasizes the contribution of mass movements. For example,

overemphasizing Luther King Jr. and underemphasizing the civil rights

movement itself. From _A People's History_ and from the article posted

Zinn obviously doesn't deny any role for historical heroes (after all it would

be hard to write a captivating book about history without any individuals!),

but he has also made the comments described above (I can't quote him now.)

As to whether he's a good man or not, I'm not sure what the measure of that

is, but I think I'd agree. I disagree with his politics, but I would judge a

" good man " or a " bad man " more on their personal integrity, honesty, and

willingness to fight for what they believe in. I don't know Zinn personally,

but he

does fight for what he believes in and he at least seems like an honest

person. I imagine his family and friends are in a much better position to judge

his personal worth than me.

_____

wrote:

> Here's Zinn's response to similar criticisms:

>

> http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Unsung_Heroes.html

>

> I wouldn't call him a great man--given his affliction with the economic

> naivete characteristic of leftists--but no one who wants to elevate

> Shays above Woodrow and Abraham Lincoln can be all bad.

______

~~~~> Agreed there. Although, contrary to the paragraph he devotes to that

subject in the article, the most recent research indicates that Shays'

Rebellion was anything BUT a revolt of " poor farmers. " I forget the other guy

who led

it, but the Massachusetts government propaganda dropped the other leader and

emphasized Shays because he *was* a poor indebted farmer (outnumbered by a lot

of well-off people, such as the entire Dickinson family [as in ]). The

MA gov't used very dishonest propaganda to get the " national " (if you will)

leaders like Washington et al., to oppose the revolt, and convinced the

" national " scene that the revolt was poor indebted farmers seeking to do away

with

private property and institute land reform and wealth redistribution. In fact,

the revolt was a mix of people, a whole lot of whom had a whole lot of money,

revolting against the overly centralized gov't that was foisted on the people

of MA rather illegitimately

..

If it wasn't for this propaganda campaign, it's possible the Constitutional

Convention would have been a failure. Washington's presence was considered

essential by many for the formation of a new Constitution, and Henry Knox

convinced Washington to attend for the precise reason that the revolters in MA

were

supposedly going to do away with private property.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/14/04 7:44:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> Exactly - so you embellished what is actually a more subtle point to the

> point of caricature to make it appear ridiculous and false. One can do that

> with all sorts of positions, but it is not intellectually honest.

____

~~~~~> I suppose it would be dishonest if I gave the impression that I was

giving a general critique of Zinn's writing, but I think my opening remarks that

someday thinking would be banned set the tone of the post as caricature quite

openly.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> Gene wrote:

>

>>> Of course, Zinn does not " blot the hero from the page "

>>> as you say so eloquently in your usual pseudo poetical

>>> hysterics. He just finds heroism in different places than

>>> elitists like yourself.

> _____

>

> ~~~~> You're right-- Zinn doesn't ignore the contributions of individuals to

> history. I was exaggerating for the sake of embellishment based on comments

> Zinn has made that are in agreement with a general tendency on *part* of the

> Left to the effect that traditional history overemphasizes the contributions

> of

> heroes and underemphasizes the contribution of mass movements.

Exactly - so you embellished what is actually a more subtle point to the

point of caricature to make it appear ridiculous and false. One can do that

with all sorts of positions, but it is not intellectually honest.

> For example,

> overemphasizing Luther King Jr. and underemphasizing the civil rights

> movement itself. From _A People's History_ and from the article

> posted

> Zinn obviously doesn't deny any role for historical heroes (after all it would

> be hard to write a captivating book about history without any individuals!),

> but he has also made the comments described above (I can't quote him now.)

And makes a pretty good case for it too. Certainly not worthy of your cheap

ridicule.

[Guest guest]

>

> In a message dated 11/14/04 7:44:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>> Exactly - so you embellished what is actually a more subtle point to the

>> point of caricature to make it appear ridiculous and false. One can do that

>> with all sorts of positions, but it is not intellectually honest.

> ____

>

> ~~~~~> I suppose it would be dishonest if I gave the impression that I was

> giving a general critique of Zinn's writing, but I think my opening remarks

> that

> someday thinking would be banned set the tone of the post as caricature quite

> openly.

>

> Chris

That's a dodge, as usual. There is some obvious exaggeration in your post,

but it serves to make your point, which is not exaggeration. And you use

Zinn as a more serious juxtaposition to your comment about banning thought.

You are hereby banished to the intellectually dishonest reading group.